[ALAC] Bikeshedding [was Re: Open Public Comment Proceedings]
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sun Sep 3 22:06:43 UTC 2017
For comments directly related to WG where we have
participants, it is not a problem, They ARE the
resource we use to determine if a comment is
needed and at times to bring others up to speed.
It is for all of the other comments that can be more problematic.
At 02/09/2017 05:37 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>Thanks for your response. I think one of the
>challenges (which by the way I am also guilty
>of) is the lack of significant active At-Large folks in those WGs.
>My question then was whether those active in it
>can help flag the issues while staff develop
>documents that provides background explanation
>which then helps those who are not quite active
>to have the opportunity to contribute which may
>then serve as sufficient information to improve participation in the WGs.
>Sent from my mobile
>Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>On Sep 2, 2017 8:09 PM, "Alan Greenberg"
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>Seun, I will note that there is a page of
>upcoming public comments -
>Perhaps we have people who would be willing to
>review that regularly and identify issues that we want staff to brief us on.
>And of course, it would be good if we had active
>WGs on topics that we know are going to be in out view.
>At 02/09/2017 01:24 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>Thanks for this and for raising a point about
>>what you think we should be focusing our
>>resources upon. May I suggest you kindly
>>provide references to the discussion you refer
>>so that people like myself can also follow-up.
>>I think we should consider a issue triggering
>>approach to help focus our discussion and spur
>>up interest. What I mean by this is that folks
>>participating in certain working group
>>discussion that find something they believe
>>ALAC should weigh in on can flag/raise it and
>>that can form discussion topics during ALAC
>>calls and on the list. I think that approach
>>worked well during the transition.
>>That said, I wonder whether once someone raises
>>an issue of importance, staff can be in a
>>position to provide brief documentation that
>>helps others have some background understanding
>>of the issue in other to better contribute to
>>the discussion. Overall we should not be
>>waiting for PC before ALAC puts in position
>>statements to WG and/or advice to the Board
>>Sent from my mobile
>>Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>On Sep 2, 2017 5:20 PM, "Evan Leibovitch"
>><<mailto:evan at telly.org>evan at telly.org> wrote:
>>On 2 September 2017 at 09:05,
>><<mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net> h.raiche at internode.on.net> wrote:
>>I've had a look at all three, and am not sure
>>they are of real importance to ALAC
>>Ã¢â¹Holly is exactly right.
>>At-Large has a scarcity of volunteer resources
>>ÃÂ-- notably in those who have the time,
>>skills and background necessary to analyze such
>>matters and write cogent, relevant responses.Ã¢â¹
>>While it is wholly appropriate of staff to
>>ensure that we don't accidentally miss
>>anything, it is also incumbent upon At-Large
>>(and especially its leadership) to show the
>>discipline necessary to ignore that minutiae
>>and concentrate on the larger picture of how
>>ICANN actions impact end-users globally. We
>>have not always succeeded in this discipline.
>>In fact, yesterday a software developer friend
>>of mine introduced me to a term I hadn't heard
>>before, that IMO well describes ALAC's historic
>>tendency to get caught up in the flurry of
>>responding to ICANN's trivia and losing sight
>>of the real bylaw-mandated purpose we are here
>>to serve: <http://communitymgt.wikia.com/wiki/Bikeshedding>bikeshedding .
>>Right now I am involved in a GNSO working group
>>in which domain industry representatives are
>>insisting to pore over every word of the Geneva
>>Convention to determine whether the Red Cross
>>has the right to ask that its names not be in
>>the pool of domains for sale in gTLDs. At least
>>from an end-user standpoint this is absolutely
>>absurd; we don't need this kind of time wastage
>>for At-Large to tell the Board and community of
>>ICANN that enabling commercial (ab)use of Red
>>Cross/Crescent/Diamond/etc domain names is morally repugnant.
>>Many other examples exist in At-Large. It most
>>reliably emerges any time the phrase "public interest" is invoked in our midst.
>>Industry advocates paid to divert stakeholders
>>from the big picture have created an ICANN
>>process designed to distract and waste
>>resources from those of us without the
>>financial incentive or means to keep up.
>>This is bikeshedding by design. Resist.
>>ALAC mailing list
>><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>ALAC Working Wiki:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ALAC